With-Love-to-Muhammad

Statements of Hazrat Muhy-ud-dīn Ibn ‘Arabī rh 171intrinsic qualities of the Mahdī would be essentiallythose of the Holy Prophet sa himself. 175This is the greatness of the Promised Messiah and ImāmMahdī as ! However, it seems that Farhan Khan insists uponbelittling the status of the Messiah.Other than the above, Farhan Khan criticizes thePromised Messiah as again by saying, “[Hazrat Mirzā GhulāmAhmad as ] understands khātam al-nabīyīn to mean finality ofprophethood, but in the same sentence, he says all futureprophets will be zillī or burūzī prophets. The finality ofprophets is an unconditional statement leaving no room forexceptions. Zillī or burūzī prophets are a subset of prophets thatkhātam al-nabīyīn has terminated. This is a contradiction.” 176This is in fact not a contradiction in the writings of thePromised Messiah as . Instead, it most certainly is a contradictionin Farhan Khan’s arguments! When Ibn ‘Arabī’ rh says that oneform of prophethood continues after the Holy Prophet sa , he doesnot have any problem with that but when the PromisedMessiah as says that one form of prophethood continues after theHoly Prophet sa , then it becomes a contradiction! How ridiculousand unacceptable! Why did he not apply the same rule toHazrat Ibn ‘Arabī rh and write a book against him? Why did henot try to refute Hazrat Ibn ‘Arabī rh that the phrase Khātam-an-Nabiyyīn does not allow any kind of prophethood to continue,whatsoever? In addition, in accordance with his usual practice,the actual quotation of the Promised Messiah as was notpresented. Khan was deceptive enough to know that hiscriticism would have been invalidated had he presented the175Sharah Fusūs Al-Hikam, Page 35176Khan, With Love, Page 40